Muloghonto Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: The law was passed by the parliament. Who tables it and who opposed it very clear. Why should SC get the credit , as they can’t even pass laws in India!!. For laws, they ask the Center government for action. Again, you show limited knowledge of how things work in the Indian system by just googling stuff. Congress or RaGa get zero credit as they claim they are good for gays only if Muslim organizations give the “green” signal. There is some legal opposition to gay marriage in our IPC regarding property rights etc., that’s what the Center is arguing. My point was the opposition to gay rights is coming only from bigots of Muslims and Christians and not from Hindus. VHP or Bajrang Dal or even BJP has not protested on the street against gay rights. You are a dumb bulb to understand it. He isn't a dumb bulb, he is an ignorant bulb with nefarious agenda of liberal supremacy. Thatz why liberals do Hindu musl8m Christian Buddhist equal equal because they very well know that not only are we more peaceful and moral than the evil abrahamic demon worshippers, we are also more moral in our conduct than liberals. And not just us, but pretty much all non abrahamic religions. This is because liberalism and leftism suffer from the same totalitarian fascism of abrahamism that it is spawned off of. This is why librtard supremacists like him call people like me Hindu supremacist, despite my categoric statement that if u wish to argue there are other Asian pagan religions better than Hinduism, I won't mind such a statement. Ever seen a supremacist saying 'I don't mind if another ideology is seen better than mine " ?? That is because libbu tactic is anglo savage tactic of divide and conquer. That's why his focus on trying to isolate us. mishra and coffee_rules 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: You said this: " Then the conclusion becomes: Abrahamic religions and Hinduism all consider homosexuality to be not natural, but a disease. The difference is dealing with it on state level or dealing with it on family level." Okay. My mistake. Indeed this statement was made by me and I apologize for this. However, if we replace Hinduism with Hindu Society or Hindu people, then the issue still standing there. It was according to that Hindu guy: "We (as a Hindu society?) sweep it under the carpet, as should be done in such cases. " Thus, the issue of remaining SILENT is still there and nothing has been changed. 26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The supremacist is you, retard. You claim supremacy of your belief of retarded white man ideologies, I do not claim supremacy of Hinduism over everything. I even said that if you wish to argue Hinduism isn't best paganism, sure. Find me one supremacist who says that, retarded lying liberal. Firstly, nothing of this justifies your abusive language. Secondly, secular liberalism is not a white man ideology but a "human ideology". You have just presented proof of your racism. Thirdly, why are you returning to same allegations again and again which we have already discussed previously? Hiding your Hindu Supremacy now behind Asian paganism is futile. And your lame excuse of Paganism has nothing to do with Asia, as paganism is practised all over the world, including Africa. If you claim paganism is the reason for superiority of Asian countries (which they don't really have), then the same paganism gets the blame of ignorance in Africa. The clear truth is, paganism or Asian paganism has nothing to do with development, but it depends upon societies and how they consider the importance of getting education etc. And it is a fact that modern day secular liberalism is much superior to any old pagan religion or its laws or any pagan society as it provides much more rights to humans as compared to any pagan religion or pagan society. It is the same as when you claim that Islam is inferior in giving human rights to people. In the same way there is no problem in telling the truth that modern secular liberal societies give more rights to their citizens as compared to any old pagan societies. Moreover, modern Asian countries have themselves dumped their pagan religious laws and old pagan customs and practices, and they are now basically following the superior Secular liberal laws in their society (including India). And also Jews are much smaller in numbers than Hindus, but their scientific output and number of Noble Prizes are far far far ahead of Hindus. Abrahamic Jews are far far far better in this regard than Hindu society. It is not due to their race or religion, but it is simply due to the fact that the Jewish society put a lot of efforts on education to survive. 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Ofcourse it does, since Hindu gods are not responsible for what happens to us in life. Of course, any god who claims to be the creator of this universe and humans becomes AUTOMATICALLY responsible for all these sufferings of weaker people. No religion has an ANSWER to it. That is why ALL religions try to run away from taking this responsibility of weaker people and their sufferings. But none of them can escape from it. If not Hindu gods, then which god is responsible for creation and sufferings of humans? The silly argument that is presented by religion apologists is this that poor diseased/disabled people (including children) are themselves responsible for their sufferings. Who can accept this silly argument? 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: This is not a rational criticism of Hinduism since in Hinduism gods do not determine fate of man. It is the most rational criticism of not only Hindu gods, but all religious gods. These gods have already determined the fate of disabled/diseased people including children and their sufferings. 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: There is no proven suffering for lgbtq prior to invention of abrahamic religions, so again, it's not our culpability. Nonsense. Should all millions of homosexuals come out of their graves and testify to you that they suffered? You are not even going to admit it even then due to your stupid stubbornness. Modern science and common sense tell us clearly that homosexuals are present in each and every society. But in the whole Hinduism there is no proof if they got the right to marry and openly practice homosexuality. 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Nor is it a religions culpability for not predicting the future. Of course it is their responsibility to safe humanity from harm. But they don't predict future while they are not ABLE to do it as there exist no religious gods. 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: How dare you engage in debate on Hinduism when you do not know basics? It is stupid that you don't even able to understand that it is not a religion based question, but it is a common sense based question. All religions claim that their religious gods created the universe and humans, but when it comes to suffering of humans then all of them deny taking any responsibility. 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Because Hindus expressing personal opinion is irrelevant to Hinduism Hindus have to express personal opinions in these matters, while Hinduism is an incomplete religion and failed to provide proper guidance. 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: I have proven that secular liberals and leftists are inferior to adian pagans by today's standards So, you again failed to provide the complete solution in Hindu society, and instead again brining non-issues which are not even a part of the present topic. 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: None of these are problems in Hindu society as there is no history of discrimination against lgbtq in Hindu society. So these problems do not exist in Hindu society. Well done. When you have no answers to these questions and no complete solution, then just deny the problems. But turning blind eyes is not going to work and these questions still stand there and not going away through your stubbornness. 1. If homosexuality is considered natural or not? 2. If homosexuality is considered a disability/disease, why then Hindu gods made people to born with this ability/disease? 3. If homosexuality is a disability/disease, then you want it to be cured medically or through therapy or through parathna to Hindu gods? 4. If you allow homosexuals to publicly appear as partners, to be able to publicly marry each other, to spend their lives as a family? 5. Do you deny the LOVE between homosexual pairs? 6. How can your Hindu society be considered superior to the Western society when it considers homosexuality to be disability/disease, discourages it, not let homosexuals appear openly in public in Hindu society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 (edited) 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: The reason is bjp does not believe in judicial fascism of the west and India isn't the uncivilized land where unelected judges make rules. Bjp has steadfastly said they will legislate gay marriage when Indian public is majority in favour of it. Like a true Democrat party. Idiotic argument. Basic Human Rights are not dependant upon any “majority” view. Minorities and marginal groups and weaker/disabled people don't need any "majoritiy favour" to get their basic human rights. Secondly, BJP's opposition to basic homosexual rights is proof that Hindu Society kept on usurping homosexual rights for thousands of years in the name of it being against their traditional views. Edited January 21 by Alam_dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 10 hours ago, coffee_rules said: There is some legal opposition to gay marriage in our IPC regarding property rights etc., that’s what the Center is arguing. The opposition is also from conservative Hindus. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bjp-rss-hail-verdict-congress-studying-differing-judgements/articleshow/104507101.cms New Delhi: BJP on Tuesday welcomed the SC judgement on same-sex marriage and said the court has upheld the party's viewpoint on the same. BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi, who had argued against the same-sex marriage in the Rajya Sabha, told ET that it is a welcome step. "Marriage in India means marriage between a biological man and biological woman. Same-sex marriage is neither accepted nor recognised in any un-codified personal law or codified statutory law. This is against the cultural ethos of India," he told ET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) This thread So Far ================= Alam_Dar: Are Hindus against homosexuality Every Hindu respondent on icf: We dont care, Its personal choice Alam_Dar: No, He knows Hinduism is against Homosexuality Every Hindu respondent on icf: What makes you think so. Alam_Dar: Beacuse he heard someone saying so on a youtube video Every Hindu respondent on icf: Hindus dont agree with his view. Every person is prone to believe wrong and Society has Stupids. Alam_dar: But Your God doesnt talk about Homosexuality. Its such a important topic. Every Hindu respondent on icf: Hindusism is revisionist and non prescriptive. You can use common sense to find what you need to do. Alam_dar:No, religion has to be prescriptive Every Hindu respondent on icf: Think beyond what you already know, Don’t be Koop Mandook. Alam_dar: This is exactly what Muslims and Christians say to him that he doesn’t know their religion. Meanwhile @Muloghonto and @Alam_dar take the battle to next level. PS: Replace Homosexuality with any other word and discussion is always Same. After some month Alam_dar restarts back to zero. Edited January 21 by mishra coffee_rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Idiotic argument. Basic Human Rights are not dependant upon any “majority” view. Minorities and marginal groups and weaker/disabled people don't need any "majoritiy favour" to get their basic human rights. Secondly, BJP's opposition to basic homosexual rights is proof that Hindu Society kept on usurping homosexual rights for thousands of years in the name of it being against their traditional views. Yes they are dependent on majority views to become law. Else it's judicial tyranny of the liberals. Bjps opposition isn't proof of Hindu society anything, since bjps position is far more democratic than the lesser democratic nature of the west. mishra 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Okay. My mistake. Indeed this statement was made by me and I apologize for this. Being caught out in a lie isn't a mistake, it's standard hinduphobic bias from your duplicitous mind. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: However, if we replace Hinduism with Hindu Society or Hindu people, then the issue still standing there. False, because there is never a historic case for lgbtq discrimination in Hindu society. Give proof of such claim you are making. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: It was according to that Hindu guy: "We (as a Hindu society?) sweep it under the carpet, as should be done in such cases. " One guy isn't representative of position of Hindu society, inferior liberal. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Thus, the issue of remaining SILENT is still there and nothing has been changed. Nothing needs to change since Hindu society hasn't sanctioned against Gays. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Firstly, nothing of this justifies your abusive language. Yes if does be because liberals are inferior in morality as proven. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Secondly, secular liberalism is not a white man ideology but a "human ideology". It is Whiteman ideology coz it's invented by white people. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: You have just presented proof of your racism. Rejecting inferior performing values designed by colonials in colonial era is proper ethics, inferior ethical savage. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Thirdly, why are you returning to same allegations again and again which we have already discussed previously? Because they are objective facts that demonstrate Asian pagan superiority over inferior western ideologies like liberalism or leftism. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Hiding your Hindu Supremacy now behind Asian paganism is futile. I have always been Asian pagan supremacist since I already said I do t care if other Asian pagan religions are seen as better than Hinduism, liberal supremacist. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And your lame excuse of Paganism has nothing to do with Asia, as paganism is practised all over the world, including Africa. It has everything to do with Asian paganism since asian paganism share common values. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: If you claim paganism is the reason for superiority of Asian countries (which they don't really have), then the same paganism gets the blame of ignorance in Africa. Hence why i said ASIAN PAGANS, retard. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: The clear truth is, paganism or Asian paganism has nothing to do with development, but it depends upon societies and how they consider the importance of getting education etc. The clear truth is Asian paganism inculcated superior values and morality in humans is why people of Asian pagan values outperform everyone else is every metric. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And it is a fact that modern day secular liberalism is much superior to any old pagan religion or its laws or any pagan society as it provides much more rights to humans as compared to any pagan religion or pagan society. False. Since asian pagan societies already gave more rights to man and woman before invention of inferior western liberalism. You tried to claim Asian pagan constitutions under western liberal supremacist view without any proof, supremacist. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: It is the same as when you claim that Islam is inferior in giving human rights to people. Which is also objective facts. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: In the same way there is no problem in telling the truth that modern secular liberal societies give more rights to their citizens as compared to any old pagan societies. That isn't truth, that is liberal supremacist propaganda. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Moreover, modern Asian countries have themselves dumped their pagan religious laws and old pagan customs and practices, and they are now basically following the superior Secular liberal laws in their society (including India). False. As proven earlier India. Japan, China are still Asian pagans and have Asian pagan values. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And also Jews are much smaller in numbers than Hindus, but their scientific output and number of Noble Prizes are far far far ahead of Hindus. Because Jews didn't get colonized like us ans didn't get technology restrictions from the Western savages. Yet we have overtaken Jews in scientific output in the west. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Abrahamic Jews are far far far better in this regard than Hindu society. It is not due to their race or religion, but it is simply due to the fact that the Jewish society put a lot of efforts on education to survive. False. They are no longer better as data shows. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Of course, any god who claims to be the creator of this universe and humans becomes AUTOMATICALLY responsible for all these sufferings of weaker people. Nope. That isn't truth at all. As I said, you are still using idiot Christian and abrahamic concept of God. Inapplicable and your lack of basic theory of Hinduism is a you problem. Hinduism already explains why gods are not responsible for our fates. Learn instead of arguing like a typical inferior moral liberal 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: No religion has an ANSWER to it. That is why ALL religions try to run away from taking this responsibility of weaker people and their sufferings. But none of them can escape from it. Asian pagan religions have already answered it. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: If not Hindu gods, then which god is responsible for creation and sufferings of humans? The silly argument that is presented by religion apologists is this that poor diseased/disabled people (including children) are themselves responsible for their sufferings. Who can accept this silly argument? These are abrahamic religious arguments by idiot western liberals used against abrahamic concept of God and inapplicable to pagans, Mr lying inferior liberal. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: It is the most rational criticism of not only Hindu gods, but all religious gods. These gods have already determined the fate of disabled/diseased people including children and their sufferings. It's criticism of a god that claims to control human lives. It's not for hods that don't claim to do so. Duh. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Nonsense. Should all millions of homosexuals come out of their graves and testify to you that they suffered? Show me proof that there is any homosexual suffering in the world outside of abrahamic influence. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: You are not even going to admit it even then due to your stupid stubbornness. Modern science and common sense tell us clearly that homosexuals are present in each and every society. But in the whole Hinduism there is no proof if they got the right to marry and openly practice homosexuality. Irrelevant. You have to prove persecution if you claim so. So prove it. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Of course it is their responsibility to safe humanity from harm. But they don't predict future while they are not ABLE to do it as there exist no religious gods. That's abrahamic take on religion and ignorance of pagan religions 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: It is stupid that you don't even able to understand that it is not a religion based question, but it is a common sense based question. It is a religion based question because the religions you are claiming to suffer from this idiot liberal question have already answered it in their central thesis. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: All religions claim that their religious gods created the universe and humans, but when it comes to suffering of humans then all of them deny taking any responsibility. False. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Hindus have to express personal opinions in these matters, while Hinduism is an incomplete religion and failed to provide proper guidance. No need to provide guidance for something that isn't discriminatory in the first place. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: So, you again failed to provide the complete solution in Hindu society, and instead again brining non-issues which are not even a part of the present topic. Solution isnalready provided: Asian pagan nations way for lgbtq. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Well done. When you have no answers to these questions and no complete solution, then just deny the problems. But turning blind eyes is not going to work and these questions still stand there and not going away through your stubbornness. 1. If homosexuality is considered natural or not? 2. If homosexuality is considered a disability/disease, why then Hindu gods made people to born with this ability/disease? 3. If homosexuality is a disability/disease, then you want it to be cured medically or through therapy or through parathna to Hindu gods? 4. If you allow homosexuals to publicly appear as partners, to be able to publicly marry each other, to spend their lives as a family? 5. Do you deny the LOVE between homosexual pairs? 6. How can your Hindu society be considered superior to the Western society when it considers homosexuality to be disability/disease, discourages it, not let homosexuals appear openly in public in Hindu society? Solution is superior asian pagan wat of dealing with lgbtq waybinstead of inferior noob liberal western way which leads to victimization of women and children due to liberal crime rate being far higher than asian pagan crime rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: The opposition is also from conservative Hindus. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bjp-rss-hail-verdict-congress-studying-differing-judgements/articleshow/104507101.cms New Delhi: BJP on Tuesday welcomed the SC judgement on same-sex marriage and said the court has upheld the party's viewpoint on the same. BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi, who had argued against the same-sex marriage in the Rajya Sabha, told ET that it is a welcome step. "Marriage in India means marriage between a biological man and biological woman. Same-sex marriage is neither accepted nor recognised in any un-codified personal law or codified statutory law. This is against the cultural ethos of India," he told ET. Proof that bjp and india is far more democratic than the inferior democracies of the west that relies on unelected judicial tyranny to pass laws on its citizens. Bjp is simply doing the moral thing: laws are subject of the legislative, which is subject to popular sentiment. Inferior western fascism masquerading as democracy due to inferiority of western liberalism is proven by liberal fascism of accepting judicial fascism. Since democracy is invented in India and unbroken in India for 2000+ years at the biggest level of democracy ( panchayat) , we are more reverent of the democratic mandate than the noobie inferior democracies of the west. Don't worry we will civilized you inferior liberals with Asian pagan values as we expand in the west and convert the westerners to a superior way of life as shown by statistical superiority of Asian pagans over inferior western liberals at every metric known to man when compared in same social system. Checkmate again. Edited January 21 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 @Alam_dar I have no issues with homosexuality, neither oppose them nor back them. But I did notice two peculiar scenarios - either people will hate on homosexuals and treat them with hostility (as a result they become fearful). In second case if a straight person becomes friendly with them, they(homosexuals) would first start to be comfortable and then act super creepy as they develop an attraction for that person. Alam_dar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, mishra said: This thread So Far ================= Alam_Dar: Are Hindus against homosexuality Every Hindu respondent on icf: We dont care, Its personal choice Alam_Dar: No, He knows Hinduism is against Homosexuality Every Hindu respondent on icf: What makes you think so. Alam_Dar: Beacuse he heard someone saying so on a youtube video Every Hindu respondent on icf: Hindus dont agree with his view. Every person is prone to believe wrong and Society has Stupids. Alam_dar: But Your God doesnt talk about Homosexuality. Its such a important topic. Every Hindu respondent on icf: Hindusism is revisionist and non prescriptive. You can use common sense to find what you need to do. Alam_dar:No, religion has to be prescriptive Every Hindu respondent on icf: Think beyond what you already know, Don’t be Koop Mandook. Alam_dar: This is exactly what Muslims and Christians say to him that he doesn’t know their religion. Meanwhile @Muloghonto and @Alam_dar take the battle to next level. PS: Replace Homosexuality with any other word and discussion is always Same. After some month Alam_dar restarts back to zero. BC, he knows more than practicing Hindus about our scriptures and practices / rituals , just by reading SM and google. A few ICFers are the same, they know about US/UK more that US/UK citizens just byfollowing some racist SM Tweets and Reddit. SM is a toxic place to start forming opinions. Edited January 21 by coffee_rules mishra 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 8 hours ago, Alam_dar said: The opposition is also from conservative Hindus. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bjp-rss-hail-verdict-congress-studying-differing-judgements/articleshow/104507101.cms New Delhi: BJP on Tuesday welcomed the SC judgement on same-sex marriage and said the court has upheld the party's viewpoint on the same. BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi, who had argued against the same-sex marriage in the Rajya Sabha, told ET that it is a welcome step. "Marriage in India means marriage between a biological man and biological woman. Same-sex marriage is neither accepted nor recognised in any un-codified personal law or codified statutory law. This is against the cultural ethos of India," he told ET. That's just a debate in RS, Sushil Modi is no more. My point is the opposition to same sex shaadi is from legal pov and if it is passed, most Hindus are fine with it, will not go on the streets to protest. Courts have up0held the same-sex marriage ban from a legal/property rights pov and not from a religious pov. Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: BC, he knows more than practicing Hindus about our scriptures and practices / rituals , just by reading SM and google. A few ICFers are the same, they know about US/UK more that US citizens just by SM Tweets and Reddit. Its like , I telling you that “you are hungry and you must eat.” You say “No I am not hungry” I tell you” You don’t know , or you are lieing , because I had a dream that you are hungry hence you must be hungry and eat food”. In all his discussions on Hinduism, He has seen that everyone agreed with the supposedly correct view instead of pushing back to him the God is saying xyz and not what he is lecturing to Us, If he had common sense, He would have tried to understand why all Hindus on forum agreed with him despite his “dream/nightmare”.. coffee_rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: BC, he knows more than practicing Hindus about our scriptures and practices / rituals , just by reading SM and google. A few ICFers are the same, they know about US/UK more that US/UK citizens just byfollowing some racist SM Tweets and Reddit. SM is a toxic place to start forming opinions. Retarded libbu supremacist doesn't even know that in paganism, especially asian paganism, gods aren't controllers of human destiny. Heck, they don't even wanna interfere except maybe show up for some advice here and there and make it clear that while they can boost or retard our karma to a degree, they cannot rewrite karma and our fate is determined by our karma. This is Asian paganism 101, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, shintoism, taoism etc. That this retard doesn't even know this and argues like as if Hindu gods are abrahamic go's, shows how stupid and uneducated libbu leftists are on paganism and just use nonsense anti abrahamic arguments that are inapplicable to pagans. All because he is western liberal supremacist and totally butthurt that western liberals and leftists are orders of magnitude more rapey criminal degenerate trash compared to asian pagans and from crime rate to employment rate, drug abuse rate or every single metric, asian pagan whups the western liberal or leftist in every conceivable metric known to man by a YUUGE margin. And since we outnumber the inferior western liberals and leftists and are immigrating to these lands to colonize it, our white master bootlicker of inferior western ideology feels threatened. From born again Christians to rice bags and chuslim converts, it's the converted who have the most zeal as they are not secure enough in new identity and seem to need to prove themselves. Same applies to converted liberals and leftists too. coffee_rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) @Alam_dar I have a fundamental question regarding your OP. Why have you capitalized all the letters of the word “opinion”? OPINION vs opinion. This is not Chinapingpongfans forum. Having an opinion is the norm here and not frowned upon. Edited January 21 by Mariyam Muloghonto and coffee_rules 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 6 hours ago, MechEng said: @Alam_dar I have no issues with homosexuality, neither oppose them nor back them. But I did notice two peculiar scenarios - either people will hate on homosexuals and treat them with hostility (as a result they become fearful). In second case if a straight person becomes friendly with them, they(homosexuals) would first start to be comfortable and then act super creepy as they develop an attraction for that person. Dear @MechEng That might be true, but my interactions with homosexual people have been limited. From the few I’ve met, they’ve all been kind and decent individuals. However, I can imagine that some homosexual people might come across as unsettling or "creepy." Perhaps societal pressures and the challenges they face from a young age have shaped their personalities in ways that others find difficult to understand. I’m not sure about the exact reasons. It’s also possible that certain behaviors, when done by a homosexual person, might seem "creepy" to straight people, even though those same actions might be considered pleasant if done by someone of the opposite gender. As for myself, I can admit that I’m still not entirely free from feelings of discomfort. If a homosexual person were to approach me, I worry that I might still feel uneasy despite my efforts to overcome this bias. I once witnessed a homosexual couple fall deeply in love with each other, and they are now leading a happy and fulfilling life together. On the other hand, I had a homosexual friend who experienced unrequited love. He fell for someone but never had the chance to express his feelings. It was a one-sided love; the other person likely never even knew about my friend's existence or his feelings. I saw the pain and suffering my friend endured due to this unfulfilled love, and it left a profound impact on me. An unfulfilled love .... nakaam muhabbat .... it seems it impacts and changes our personalities more than a fulfilled love. I don't have words to express my feelings. Today, I firmly believe that if love itself is natural, then homosexuality is undoubtedly natural as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 20 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Dear @MechEng That might be true, but my interactions with homosexual people have been limited. From the few I’ve met, they’ve all been kind and decent individuals. However, I can imagine that some homosexual people might come across as unsettling or "creepy." Perhaps societal pressures and the challenges they face from a young age have shaped their personalities in ways that others find difficult to understand. I’m not sure about the exact reasons. It’s also possible that certain behaviors, when done by a homosexual person, might seem "creepy" to straight people, even though those same actions might be considered pleasant if done by someone of the opposite gender. As for myself, I can admit that I’m still not entirely free from feelings of discomfort. If a homosexual person were to approach me, I worry that I might still feel uneasy despite my efforts to overcome this bias. I once witnessed a homosexual couple fall deeply in love with each other, and they are now leading a happy and fulfilling life together. On the other hand, I had a homosexual friend who experienced unrequited love. He fell for someone but never had the chance to express his feelings. It was a one-sided love; the other person likely never even knew about my friend's existence or his feelings. I saw the pain and suffering my friend endured due to this unfulfilled love, and it left a profound impact on me. An unfulfilled love .... nakaam muhabbat .... it seems it impacts and changes our personalities more than a fulfilled love. I don't have words to express my feelings. Today, I firmly believe that if love itself is natural, then homosexuality is undoubtedly natural as well. Cool story. We don't need to hear about how you the Islam infected guy finally came to the level of conclusion about homosexuals that pretty much 90% of Hindus Buddhists jains shintos and other Asian pagans come to by the age of 18-20. The rest 10% who don't are clinical retards of infected by abrahamic disgust via their rule over asian pagans. So congrats but understand that we see this story with pity because we are experiencing a grown ass man at 40+ speak like a standard 18-19 year old Hindu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 6 hours ago, coffee_rules said: My point is the opposition to same sex shaadi is from legal pov and if it is passed, most Hindus are fine with it, will not go on the streets to protest. Courts have up0held the same-sex marriage ban from a legal/property rights pov and not from a religious pov. Alright, but I’d like to clarify that my point was less about the legal perspective and more about personal opinions and societal attitudes. Here are my observations and concerns: The modern secular Indian state officially abolished the caste system and permitted intercaste and interreligious marriages. However, non-official societal opposition to such mixing still persists. In other words, while the state may be officially secular, the society remains far from fully secular or liberal. This raises a similar question about homosexuality in Indian society: Even if it is legal, does an unofficial opposition to homosexuality persist? For instance, people may not consider it a crime, but they might still be uncomfortable with the idea of a family member being homosexual. This suggests that complete societal acceptance for homosexual relationships, especially within families, might still be lacking. A parallel can be drawn with racial relationships in the West. For example, while interracial marriages between white and black/brown individuals are legal, some white people still oppose such unions. At the same time, there are others who are genuinely liberal and fully support these marriages without any prejudice. The same dynamic applies to homosexuality. In much of Europe, it is not as significant an issue anymore. However, in the United States, many homosexual individuals continue to face laughter, humiliation, bullying, and discrimination. Therefore, the question for Indian society becomes: "Even though homosexuality is legal, are homosexual individuals still laughed at, humiliated, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 18 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Alright, but I’d like to clarify that my point was less about the legal perspective and more about personal opinions and societal attitudes. Here are my observations and concerns: The modern secular Indian state officially abolished the caste system and permitted intercaste and interreligious marriages. However, non-official societal opposition to such mixing still persists. In other words, while the state may be officially secular, the society remains far from fully secular or liberal. This raises a similar question about homosexuality in Indian society: Even if it is legal, does an unofficial opposition to homosexuality persist? For instance, people may not consider it a crime, but they might still be uncomfortable with the idea of a family member being homosexual. This suggests that complete societal acceptance for homosexual relationships, especially within families, might still be lacking. A parallel can be drawn with racial relationships in the West. For example, while interracial marriages between white and black/brown individuals are legal, some white people still oppose such unions. At the same time, there are others who are genuinely liberal and fully support these marriages without any prejudice. The same dynamic applies to homosexuality. In much of Europe, it is not as significant an issue anymore. However, in the United States, many homosexual individuals continue to face laughter, humiliation, bullying, and discrimination. Therefore, the question for Indian society becomes: "Even though homosexuality is legal, are homosexual individuals still laughed at, humiliated, bullied, or otherwise discriminated against?" We are not trying to bd secular or liberal anymore since as we have seen, liberal secularism is rapey trash people with inferior morals and inferior performance to us in each and every metric known to man. So the goal is not to be lower in quality as liberals and secular but get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 10 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Dear @MechEng That might be true, but my interactions with homosexual people have been limited. From the few I’ve met, they’ve all been kind and decent individuals. However, I can imagine that some homosexual people might come across as unsettling or "creepy." Perhaps societal pressures and the challenges they face from a young age have shaped their personalities in ways that others find difficult to understand. I’m not sure about the exact reasons. It’s also possible that certain behaviors, when done by a homosexual person, might seem "creepy" to straight people, even though those same actions might be considered pleasant if done by someone of the opposite gender. As for myself, I can admit that I’m still not entirely free from feelings of discomfort. If a homosexual person were to approach me, I worry that I might still feel uneasy despite my efforts to overcome this bias. I once witnessed a homosexual couple fall deeply in love with each other, and they are now leading a happy and fulfilling life together. On the other hand, I had a homosexual friend who experienced unrequited love. He fell for someone but never had the chance to express his feelings. It was a one-sided love; the other person likely never even knew about my friend's existence or his feelings. I saw the pain and suffering my friend endured due to this unfulfilled love, and it left a profound impact on me. An unfulfilled love .... nakaam muhabbat .... it seems it impacts and changes our personalities more than a fulfilled love. I don't have words to express my feelings. Today, I firmly believe that if love itself is natural, then homosexuality is undoubtedly natural as well. What if your friend was actually checking out a straight guy? See this is where things get tricky, some may suppress it while others who express themselves force straight people to become homophobes. Alam_dar and mishra 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted January 22 Author Share Posted January 22 3 hours ago, MechEng said: What if your friend was actually checking out a straight guy? See this is where things get tricky, some may suppress it while others who express themselves force straight people to become homophobes. I am afraid that it is a genuine challenge that our society will face. Actually, I am already aware of this problem, and I have already pondered upon it, and with my limited wisdom, I have come to few conclusions: This world is not made by any 100% PERFECT god. Thus, we are living in a non-perfect world, where 100% perfect solutions are not possible, and we have to make a lot of COMPROMISES to survive. In fact, this challenge isn’t exclusive to interactions involving LGBTQ individuals. A similar dynamic already exists in straight relationships. For instance, what happens when a straight man checks out a woman who doesn’t reciprocate his interest? Unfortunately, in our society, men often cross boundaries and make women uncomfortable, sometimes even disrupting their lives. Should this make women hate all men? Unfortunately, not a 100% perfect solution is possible for this problem too. Similarly, the LGBTQ community may face challenges if they push for immediate acceptance of certain demands, as this could unintentionally alienate straight individuals who are still adjusting to these changes. A good example of this is the ongoing discussion about pronouns, which is a sensitive issue and requires its own separate conversation. Personally, it took me years to overcome my internal discomfort with homosexuality and to truly embrace a more accepting perspective. This gradual shift in my thinking makes me believe that society, too, needs time to process and adapt to these changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts